The University of North Carolina has filed its response to the NCAA’s amended notice of allegations over academic irregularities.
In the document, the university questions whether the NCAA is attempting to reach beyond what is allowed in its bylaws and constitution and argues that some of the allegations do not rise to the highest level at which they were cited.
MORE: Lack of sanctions for UNC could be blow to NCAA justice
The next step in the process will be an appearance before the Committee on Infractions this fall. The committee will make the final decision in the case.
The response follows an NCAA’s amended Notice of Allegations from April. The first notice was issued on May 20, 2015, and alleged five Level I violations, including a lack of institutional control and providing athletes with impermissible benefits stemming from actions attributed to former women’s basketball academic counselor Jan Boxill.
The initial academic violations allegedly occurred from 1993-2011 and involved multiple sports and 3,0000 student-athletes. The initial allegations primarily concerned the university’s former African and Afro-American Studies department with charges that athletes took essentially “fake” classes and received improper help completing coursework.
In the response to the amended Notice of Allegations, the university argues that the NCAA”s “authority to initiate and conduct enforcement actions against its member institutions is derived from – and constrained by – the NCAA’s constitution and bylaws. As a membership association, all NCAA rules are agreed upon and adopted by its members. The NCAA and its members are bound by the Association’s rules.
"It would be an unprecedented application of NCAA rules to impose a penalty on institutional employees, student-athletes, or sport programs that are not the subject of, or even referenced in, an allegation in the ANOA."
That point is referenced in the executive summary attached to the announcement.
After citing that, the document goes on to explain how several aspects to do not conform to this standard. Among the arguments is that the amended notice referred to academic issues of “course structure, content and administrative oversight” beyond the NCAA’s authority.
"Our response to the ANOA addresses the scope of the NCAA’s regulatory authority as stated in its bylaws," it reads. "This case involves core institutional issues—academic issues—not covered by the NCAA’s bylaws. It also looks at issues regarding fairness and consistency and the NCAA’s statute of limitations."
MORE: UNC will no longer sell star athletes' jerseys
The response argues that the “academic irregularities – grave as they were – do not, however, constitute a lack of institutional control under the NCAA constitution and bylaws.”
The response goes on to list changes made at the university and close cooperation with the enforcement staff.
In the conclusion, the response states that the issues listed in the document make it difficult for UNC to order sanctions.
“In the interim, this case’s jurisdictional and procedural issues make it difficult for the University to assign appropriate penalties for the alleged violations,” the conclusion reads, in part. “If the hearing panel determines that penalties are to be imposed, the University believes that they must be tied directly to a particular violation of NCAA bylaws and, in all instances, must be applied in a fair and consistent manner.
“It would be an unprecedented application of NCAA rules to impose a penalty on institutional employees, student-athletes, or sport programs that are not the subject of, or even referenced in, an allegation in the ANOA.”